Q24 - The United States ranks far

[bbirdwell]

Let's note the facts:

1. US is behind countries like Sweden & Canada in safety.

2. Joint committees in ALL THREE countries have been successful in reducing injuries.

3. In the US, these committees are in only a few companies.

4. In Sweden & Canada, they exist in all medium/large companies.

In can be helpful on these questions to make the obvious conclusion if there seems to be one. In this case, it is reasonable to conclude that adding more committees in the US would reduce injuries, since the few committees that exist have been successful.

(A) Yep.

(B) "more effective?" No evidence for this. There are more of them, yes. But they aren't necessarily more effective.

(C) "prior to the laws?" No.

(D) "prior to the laws?" No,

(E) "would surpass?" No. This is an extreme generalization. Not supported by the text.

[choeunjae]

Thanks for the explanation, but I am still stuck on this question on two points -

1. I understand that no other answer is better than (A), but still have my doubts about it being necessarily correct. For example, while we know that the joint labor-management committees that oversee workplace safety conditions have been very successful in reducing occupational injuries, we don't know if it will continue to be successful. In order for (A) to hold, wouldn't we need to assume some information not stated in the passage (that the joint committees will continue to be effective)? And if so, when are we allowed to assume things and when are we not?

2. We are only told that the difference between the two groups of comparison is that one group (United States) did not fully utilize this method, whereas another group (Sweden and Canada) did in many circumstances. But in order for (A) to hold true, we would need to assume that there are no other differences.

If there were other factors involved, while joint labor-management committees have been effective and very successful in reducing occupational injuries, a confounding factor might be the actual cause of the reduction in the number of occupational injuries, and we won't be able to conclude that the institution of more joint safety committees in the United States will result in a reduction of occupational injuries.

In this case, how do we know that in fact, the number of joint labor-management committees and the reduction in occupational injuries are directly correlated?

Thanks!

[bbirdwell]

In the second sentence we are given as fact that the committees have been successful in reducing injuries. This is causal. Committees --> less injuries.

US --> lower safety and voluntary committees
Sweden & Canada --> higher safety and mandatory committees in medium/large companies

Now, without making things too complicated, put together the "obvious" inference here. "If the US had mandatory committees for medium/large companies, safety would go up (injuries would go down)."

Then look at the choices

(A) pretty much spot on. Do I have to assume that the committees would work in the US? Sure. Do I have to assume that there is such a thing as "law" in the US, and that committees CAN in fact be required by that law? Yep. Do I have to assume that there actually exists a way to distinguish between small and medium companies? Yup. Are these reasonable assumptions to make? Pretty much. Let's leave (A) and look at the other choices.

(B) unsupported. no comparison about the effectiveness of these two is made
(C) completely unsupported
(D) completely unsupported
(E) unsupported. no future predictions are made.

(A) is the only candidate.

And as you can see, for even the most reasonable arguments, all sorts of assumptions must be made. We aren't necessarily looking for an assumption-less choice, just the most reasonable, most supported by the evidence.

[soyeonjeon]

Thanks for your explanation.
Nonetheless, I am not fully persuaded as there remains a bit of a possibility of there being false analogy. What if those worked only in those three countries and there is no guarantee and it does not necessarily follow that it will work in the US.
Could somebody please help me out here? Thanks!

[tommywallach]

Hey Soyeon,

So two things to say here.

Thing #1: The point of the LSAT is not necessarily to always pick perfect answers. It's to pick the best one. So poking holes in the right answer, when it's documented as correct, is a bit pointless. Unless there's some other answer choice you were tempted by (and none of them are better), it really doesn't matter.

However, I'd still disagree with your take on this question. If anything, your problem is that you're overthinking it. Remember, the last question on any LR section will usually be pretty easy!

We know:

1) "Joint labor-management committees have been very successful in reducing occupational injuries"

2) There are only a "few" such committees in the U.S.

If we know that the committees are "very successful" and that the U.S. only has a "few" of them, then we can definitively state answer choice (A): "The establishment of [more committees] would result in a reduction of occupational injuries."

Hope that helps!

-t

[af10]

The question is a Most Strongly Supported question.

I quickly eliminated C, D, E.

While I don't think B is particularly strong, I kinda think it's stronger than A.

Answer choice A says that establishing committees in all medium and large workplaces would result in a reduction of occupational injures. How do we know that is the case? The stimulus provides no basis for concluding that, as we don't know whether or not the "few companies" being referred to aren't the medium/large workplaces already. If they are, then establishing committees in all medium and large workplaces wouldn't result in a reduction in occupational injuries.

I tried to argue that the "few" might hint at the fact that not all of medium and large sized workplaces currently have committees, but the few was referring to companies, and no further information is really provided about the quantity/or that there is necessarily an exclusion of at least 1 medium/large workplace. Also, "few" is a pretty vague term and doesn't give us anything concrete (unless there's a technical meaning of few I'm unaware of).

If I were constructing my perfect answer, it certainly wouldn't be B, but I think in some respects, it's more supported. B says that a committee that is required by law is more effective at reducing occupational injuries than a voluntarily established one.

With the absence of the first sentence (in the stimulus), I could see how this answer would be a disaster, but I think the fact that it's included muddies the water a bit (and makes for why A isn't the best of the worst answers). Answer choice B says that a committee that is required by law is more effective at reducing occupational injuries than a voluntary one. We know that BOTH the United States and Sweden & Canada have been successful in reducing occupational injuries. However, the United States still ranks "FAR" behind both countries when it comes to workplace safety. The actual KNOWN difference between the United States and Canada & Sweden is the fact that one is voluntary and one is required. An answer doesn't have to be guaranteed, but we are asked to see which is the most likely to be supported. Based on what we know, I think concluding that the committees being required by law makes up for at least some (even if it's minuscule) of this difference in ranking. Especially with the inclusion of "far behind" AND the fact that that is the only known difference between the United States and Canada & Sweden.

Obviously, there are assumptions made. I don't think it's a stretch to think that the rankings have something to do with the "effectiveness" of workplace safety. As in, it could be that the rankings being talked about are about which workplace safety place looks the coolest (or anything). However, I think that's a stretch. I also realize "effectiveness" isn't clearly defined, but I think (assume) that the ranking have something to do with this effectiveness and being higher in the ranking means being more effective in (at least) some respect.

Again, not the perfect answer, I understand, but that has been my rational for this question.

Could anyone provide more/better insight?

[dangilomartin]

I agree with you completely. I choose B for the same reason. The LSAT trains us to examine a question hyper critically. (A) Contains an obvious fallacy of assumption. You simply cannot prove A to be right. All the other answers are crap. So I had to look harder again and saw that B can be made right by the reason you listed.

[xins2008]

I think the reason that (B) is incorrect is because it's out of the scope. This question discussed the issue among US, Sweden, Canada; but (B) gives a general conclusion that applies to every country.

(A) is not perfect, though. But since the question asks "which one is supported", it 's OK to choose this one, considering other 4 choices have more obvious error.

[xins2008]

Also, the number of established committees seems to be the major concerning here. Now it seems more convincing for me to choose (A). Thanks.

[LeeJ891]

None of the answers seemed correct to me.

PREM: Joint safety committees have caused workplace injuries to go down in the US, Canada, and Sweden

PREM: In Sweden and Canada (where there is a law mandating the establishment of these committees), the workplace injuries have been reduced more than in the US (where there is only voluntary establishment of these committees).

From this, how do we conclude that if the US implemented the same law that it would be successful. Just because the joint safety committees had been successful in Sweden and Canada for medium and large-sized workplaces, why would this necessarily be the case for the US? Maybe there are other factors that would limit these laws success in the US that wouldn't limit their success in Canada and Sweden. What if in the US, when workplace policies become too stringent, workers become increasingly agitated, which leads to an increase in workplace injuries. Can someone explain why workplace injuries will necessarily go down in the US if they establish these committees?

[Laura Damone]

First, please excuse the delayed response. This one must have slipped through the cracks amidst all the craziness of the past few weeks.

Second, it seems to me that you're approaching this question as though it were a Must Be True question, when in fact it is a Most Strongly Supported question.

You're correct that answer A is not guaranteed. Workplace injuries won't necessarily go down in the US for exactly the reason you site.

That said, answer A is still supported by the argument. We know that the safety committees work in the US. We also know that we have only a few companies that have established them. So, if we dramatically increase the number of companies with safety committees, we can expect that at least some reduction in occupational injuries would result.

Hope this helps!